Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-22-Speech-1-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071022.14.1-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, let me begin by reminding Members of the EU’s current fundamental policy to promote and support healthy eating. Fruit and vegetables are certainly a very important in a healthy diet. It is very important to take this on board. We have thus two aims today. We need to guarantee fruit and vegetable production and this is a golden opportunity for production and to support of agriculture. Secondly, we must ensure that fruit and vegetables are safe for consumption. We believe that the Commission’s proposal succeeds in tackling this dual challenge in a balanced fashion.
The Commission can accept in principle or in part Amendments 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 56, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 90, 92, 93, 100, 101, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 122, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 163, 164 and 165.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 1, 5, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 40, 41, 46, 55, 57, 58, 69, 72, 73, 77, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 96, 98, 99, 102, 104, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 132, 138, 139, 157, 158, 159, 161 and 162.
The Commission reserves its position on Amendment 166.
The Commission can accept, or accept subject to rewording, Amendments 9, 11, 20, 22, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 41, 43, 45, 49, 51, 56, 57, 64, 67, 75, 78, 79, 82, 84, 92, 93, 96, 102,107, 112, 114, 119, 124, 130, 131, 140, 145, 153, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 167, 170, 181, 184, 190, 195, 196, 197, 201, 203, 206, 212, 213, 215, 217, 220, 254, 258, 274, 282, 283, 286 and 301.
The Commission can accept Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 34, 39, 46, 50, 53, 54, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 76, 77, 80, 87, 89, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 108, 109, 115, 116, 121, 122, 123, 133, 134, 136, 149, 163, 169, 175, 176, 177, 180, 183, 188, 189, 193, 199, 209, 218, 225, 233, 243, 244, 248, 251, 252, 268, 279, 284, 290, 296, 297, 300, 302 and 305, in principle or in part.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 23, 28, 30, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 52, 55, 58, 60, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 97, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 113, 117, 118, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 158, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 182, 185, 186, 187, 191, 192, 194, 198, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 214, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 285, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 303, 304 and 306.
I have followed the debate by all the MEPs with considerable interest. The arguments put forward are serious and we will take them properly into account. Owing to the pressure of time, I do not want to enlarge on all the issues. Let me just touch on two or three which I believe are very important and have been raised today.
Firstly, on the subject of protecting vulnerable groups, I agree that we need to protect them, and this has been taken into account in the proposed regulation. We are also willing to accept the amendment to the included definition of vulnerable groups, simply because it guarantees their even greater protection. One comment I should like to make, although not directly connected with the subject under discussion, is on imported products: I stress that they are also monitored for pesticide residues thanks to another regulation on the maximum permissible levels of pesticide residues. We have inspection rules guaranteeing consumer protection for imports too.
More generally, approval criteria are a very important part of the legislation. Indeed, the proposal’s main aim is to protect the health of citizens and the environment. This is of great importance and we should not forget it. The proposed approval criteria are necessary to achieve this aim, so the Commission cannot accept any deviation from them. It is obvious from the debate and from some of the amendments that the European Parliament also shares these aims. Certain amendments would even strengthen these criteria. The Commission is of the view that the proposed criteria ought to ensure a high level of protection without making plant protection unworkable or dysfunctional. Consequently, the Commission will not be able to accept amendments which could undermine these criteria.
I come finally to the controversial subject of mutual recognition, which is brought about by dovetailing the different zones in this sector. I believe that our proposal has been somewhat misconstrued. First of all, let me remind you that the new proposal will introduce stricter criteria, to be implemented on a zonal basis. We should bear this in mind, for it will ensure higher levels of protection for health and the environment. let us at the same time strive towards a single, market, internal market, thus avoiding the anomaly of a single market for agricultural products on the one hand, and a divided market for plant protection products on the other. If we bear in mind particular features relating to climate and soil, division into separate zones is inevitable. The issue is not, however, so simple and clear cut, hence I have predicted a possible misunderstanding. Whereas Member States might act to protect themselves and on the other hand, during the decision-making procedure which needs the approval of the first Member State of the zone, experts from other Member States will be able to play an active part in the licensing procedure and by doing so will be able to assess the circumstances for the entire zone. In other words, the decision will not be taken in isolation and unilaterally by a Member State belonging to the zone, but representatives of the other Member States in that zone will participate through this procedure. They will be able to present their views and to persuade others of the particular conditions prevailing in their countries.
Let me single out water protection. This is also a sensitive point which has been raised by a number of MEPs. The proposal accounts for the need to protect water resources and especially the Framework Directive on Water Policy. If it is clear from the risk assessment that under the proposed terms of use the permissible limits be exceeded in vulnerable areas, the Member State involved can and must reject the use of pesticides in that particular area. Furthermore, if the Member State can prove that all its soil is a vulnerable area, it has the option not to approve the product in question at all. Therefore, the special features and the need to protect water resources are taken clearly into account in the new regulation’s proposed procedure. For this reason, the Commission, while appreciating the comments made, would not be able to accept amendments relating to the system of approval on a zonal basis.
As I have said, there are over 250 amendments, and there is no time to analyse them in detail. I see that we still have a difference of opinions, but I anticipate that the procedure and debate will enable us to find common ground.
The Commission can accept Amendments 2, 3, 6, 17, 26, 49, 52, 53, 60, 61, 66, 68, 76, 94, 95, 97, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 115 and 117."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Breyer report (A6-0359/2007 ) A6-0359/2007"1
"Klass report (A6-0347/2007 ) A6-0347/2007"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples